Commentary: Bad Arguments against WDAAC

There are both strong points and weak points in the discussion over West Davis Active Adult Community. For a lot of reasons I have chosen to stay neutral on this measure. But I think there are important positives to take away from this entire process.

The first is that the developers went above and beyond any reasonable call of duty in terms of their public outreach. They went to all of the key commissions early in the process and then came to them again. This gave them time to address concerns and hopefully improve the process. And it showed, by the time it came to the Planning Commission and the council, there were not a whole lot of concerns and not a lot of opposition.

On top of that, they went above and beyond the city’s affordable housing requirement. The one real upside of a traditional, peripheral subdivision, is that there is actually the land available to do a land dedication site, which means they can get funding.

Nevertheless, I believe there are legitimate areas to question this project – many of those have been raised legitimately on the Vanguard.

That is one reason I look at the arguments raised by five Davis residents and cringe because, for the most part, they don’t address most of those concerns.

They do note: “West Davis Active Adult Community consists of rows of expensive detached, single-story homes on very large lots.” But then they follow it up: “This Sun City-like senior project is the antithesis of modern urban planning and is the worst example of suburban sprawl proposed in Davis in over 25 years.”

Hello, Covell Village, 2000 units in 2005 (just 13 years ago) was far worse. This is hyperbole that is likely to make a discerning reader skeptical of the claims, and for the most part the arguments get no better from there.

Instead, what we have are arguments that include Irresponsible Planning, No Community Planning, Massive Developer Giveaways and Subsidies, and No Guarantee that the Required Low-Income Housing will ever be Built.

This is pretty much boilerplate anti-growth rhetoric. Let me put it this way – if I just read this argument and had no other knowledge about the project, it would push me to support the project.

I am a little hesitant at this point to help out the no side with some better arguments, but here are some points that folks should consider.

The first question is, what is the housing need that this project addresses? The developer’s theory is that there is a large and growing senior population. That population lives in Davis in homes that worked for them when they had families and children, but now that people are over 55, their children will be grown and gone from the house.

They no longer need that space, so they could downsize and free up a single-family home for a family or someone who has been unable to find a place to live in Davis.

That’s a neat story to have, but there are some practical problems, some of which they attempt to solve. One problem is there is obviously no guarantee that the senior housing will be purchased by Davis residents as opposed to people moving in from the Bay Area.

So the developer has tried to solve that problem by creating the Davis-Based Buyers Program. It’s an interesting and outside-of-the-box concept, but we have no idea if it would pass legal muster, and there are practical problems associated with enforcement, some of which the council attempted to resolve.

If I am the opposition, I start by at least bringing up this concept.

Second, as the opposition notes, these are detached, single-story homes on fairly (“very” seems extreme) large lots. There have been discussions and debate about whether the density is problematic. A lot of people are somewhat skeptical of growing out and I would argue that should be a centerpiece of the opposition, not just the lead in.

On the other hand, you do run into a problem. If you are going to build single-family homes for seniors, they almost all have to be single-story because you are not going to put elevators in single-family homes. So you then end up in a place where you either have four- to five-story highly dense condos for seniors or nothing. This is meant to be kind of a transition between single-family large house living and high-density assisted care senior housing.

Along the same lines, they are smaller homes and therefore less expensive than the huge homes people are moving out of. Expensive is a relative term, but by Davis standards these are not that expensive and if the goal is to provide housing for people downsizing, expensive really is relative – people should sell their existing homes for more than the cost of these homes.

Third, while I understand the point about no community planning, it seems disingenuous. They write: “This proposal opens up the entire northwest quadrant of the city for piecemeal development without ANY discussion of community needs or vision.” Isn’t that the point of the Measure R process? After all, we have already had three major public meetings – Planning Commission and two City Council meetings. Now the community gets to vote on it – it seems that this is the opportunity for the community to discuss needs.

Fourth, along the same lines, the developers have done the outreach to the community. They deserve praise for that and part of that outreach is an implicit discussion over community needs and vision. At the end of the day, Measure R means that the voters get to decide whether this meets our needs. I fail to comprehend the second bullet point.

Finally, on the affordable housing – “the developer is donating less than 10% of the total project land on which low-income housing MAY be built.” Once again, the developer is planning for more affordable housing than is required, so the 10 percent swipe is frankly gratuitous.

The land dedication process works largely as described. The land is set aside for a non-profit to develop affordable housing. There is a provision within the development agreement that after a certain amount of time, the land would go to the city which would then be in charge of finding the affordable housing developer.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this type of affordable housing project, but the advantage is the availability of grants and other money to subsidize it, which allows for it to meet (or in this case exceed) the requirements.

Finally, there are simply people who are opposed to age-restricted housing – period. That’s probably a relatively small segment of the population, but that would seem to be an argument that should be raised here and was not.

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

“There are both strong points and weak points in the discussion over West Davis Active Adult Community. For a lot of reasons I have chosen to stay neutral on this measure… I believe there are legitimate areas to question this project – many of those have been raised legitimately on the Vanguard.”

I simply don’t believe the opposition does anything more than regurgitate anti-growth talking points. Do you disagree with any of this Alan Miller?

I am a little hesitant at this point to help out the no side with some better arguments, but here are some points that folks should consider.

There are both strong points and weak points in the discussion over West Davis Active Adult Community. For a lot of reasons I have chosen to stay neutral on this measure… I believe there are legitimate areas to question this project – many of those have been raised legitimately on the Vanguard

David – What a hoot. I’m afraid your rather obvious bias has leaked through your dainties and is showing from behind. You claim to be hesitant to help out the NO side but will graciously do so in the name of objectivity…and then you give all the arguments that show your subjective support for the project.

For the record, please state some “better arguments” that folks should consider or “legitmate areas to question the project” that influence your so-called neutrality.

And BTW – Covell Village was a FAR, FAR denser proposal than the WDAAC sprawling mess. And you accuse me of hyperbole!

You are doing the same thing you were complaining about a few days ago. We want the developers to engage with the community, listen to feedback, modify the project as needed but then when they do, it gets turned around on them.

Count me in as one of the relatively small segment who oppose age-restricted housing. Let’s be clear, this is not a development designed to meet the needs of seniors with special needs associated with aging—as would a continuing care retirement community, for example. As the name says, this is for “active” seniors. The only significant amenities are single story and relatively small size. These are features needed by younger adults as well—e.g., people with disabilities, first-time home-buyers, etc.

And don’t get me started on the absurd Davis Based Buyers Program, which would give preferences to some who have never set foot in Davis, or may have lived here briefly decades ago, and disadvantage local county and region residents who may have worked in Davis, shopped in Davis, or had other connections for their entire lives but don’t meet Program criteria.

I am in favor of housing that is based on inclusiveness and diversity, not exclusion and discrimination.

I don’t think that Eric is in a “relatively small segment” of people who oppose age-restricted housing since “most” people I know are not fans of age-restricted housing and I’m wondering if Eric really thinks that almost everyone in town (the “really big segment” of people) wants to segregate Davis by age.

Every developer I know would like the option to sell to as many people as possible (to maximize profits) and I’m wondering if anyone heard why the developer decided to go with a “senior” development (and have to tell rich young couples that work at Genentech that they can’t jump into the bidding wars for the new homes).

I understand age-restricted housing in some circumstances… rare, very special circumstances… this proposal fits neither… add me to the list of those strongly opposed to that aspect.

Ironically, URCAD, across the street, with three gradations, where an individual/couple could move back and forth between cottages, apartments with semi-assisted living (accommodations for oxygen spigots in the units, etc.), and full convalescent facilities, was a damn good project… in my opinion…

Well, David, how does the community feel about “means-restricted” housing? Should affordable housing be only in complexes (“ghettos?”) or interspersed in the community? I opine, “interspersed”… but have done no ‘polls’…

Here we have a proposal primarily geared to an older, more affluent market… the major premise, in fact… I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the proposed housing will be at least as expensive, per square foot of living space/lot size, than what the target audience currently lives in… so, by “down-sizing”, it looks like a “benefit”… but is it, really? [except, of course, for the developer…]

Also, starting to wonder if “Davis-Based Buyers Program” also means offering/requiring the senor ‘sellers’ giving developers/real estate brokers the exclusive rights to market the properties being sold by the seniors… follow the money… may be much more profit there than the project itself…

offering/requiring the senor ‘sellers’ giving developers/real estate brokers the exclusive rights to market the properties being sold by the seniors…

That’s an interesting thought. Considering how many senior living places have the senior turn over all their assets to the place (if you have enough) in exchange for living there in perpetuity (or until you die, whichever comes first), this wouldn’t surprise me. (In some contracts, the senior living place gives a small amount back to the descendants if the person dies soon after moving in). Wonder if you have uncovered something with your speculation?

“This is pretty much boilerplate anti-growth rhetoric.” – Being “boilerplate” does not make assertions incorrect.

“The first is that the developers went above and beyond any reasonable call of duty in terms of their public outreach” – This clearly depends on what you feel “reasonable” is. I would like to see some consultation ( community outreach) regarding desirability before the project is developed, not just tweaking after the fact.

“have no idea of the size of the segment opposed to age-restricted housing” – Add me to the number who do not favor age-restricted housing, or housing presumably favoring those with a Davis connection.

“I simply don’t believe the opposition does anything more than regurgitate anti-growth talking points” – You have chosen a narrow definition of the opposition. Although I have not taken a stand, I am leaning against, my reasons being: Location, poor utilization of space, no guarantee of meeting Davis community needs, age only restriction without regarded to capabilities.

“Now the community gets to vote on it – it seems that this is the opportunity for the community to discuss needs.”

This may not be what your meant, but it is what you wrote. A vote does not equal and in no way guarantees a thorough discussion which, IMO, should occur well before a vote.

Reading between the lines… you and everyone who opines as you do, should be final arbiters… but a vote of the people ” does not equal and in no way guarantees a thorough discussion which, IMO, should occur well before a vote.” Agree… one of the reasons I oppose continuance of J/R… doesn’t guarantee anything, is expensive, likely arbitrary and capricious… votes swayed by ‘who yells loudest’…

I took a quick look at the ballot statements (in the other article), and would have to agree with David that the opposition missed some of the more obvious, key concerns regarding the proposal. Including (but not limited to) how this development would legally ensure that the housing would actually be purchased by Davis residents.

Another weakness of the proposal (that has been overlooked by everyone) is the fact that more seniors are “aging in place”, these days. (There’s articles on the Internet, regarding this trend.) Perhaps part of the reason is to pass on their existing homes (and low property taxes) to their children. There’s also significant costs involved with buying and selling properties. In addition, much of the existing homes in Davis are already suitable for seniors. (Folks are already living in “downsized” houses.) And, those living in the relatively few McMansions probably have the means and desire to stay in place.

However, as far as “outreach” is concerned, that is often a “fake” claim made by developers. Performing outreach for an ill-advised proposal is simply a way to “show” that outreach was done.

Actually, the developers don’t even make the claim that the housing would be purchased by Davis residents. Here’s the wording the wording that’s being used on the ballot, per the other article:

” . . . 90% of the home sales will be limited to Davis-connected buyers.”

I have no idea what this actually means, how it would be proven, the legality of it, or how it would be enforced. (Including what might happen if someone tries to purchases a house based upon a questionable claim of being “connected”. Would there be legal challenges, if someone is denied?)

Good questions… surprising I note that… “Davis-connected” might mean ‘chain-migration’… (opposed by POTUS, unless his in-laws are the beneficiaries)…

And, we surmise, from your past posts, you oppose migration to Davis, unless it is neutral to ‘growth’… you and “the Donald” appear to have some things in common… as do others in Davis, not just you… see the opponents list… and some of the “conservative” (and, some of the supposedly “progressive”) posters here… none of those will probably see the similarities…

Regarding “migration” to Davis, I’m not “opposed” to that. I just don’t see how it benefits Davis (or the region) to endlessly expand, for the purpose of accommodating it. (Same thing applies for other communities, as well.)

The alternative is that we end up with communities like Natomas, Elk Grove, Roseville, Rancho Cordova . . . Ultimately becoming another giant “megacommunity” centered around Sacramento, similar to the Los Angeles area. Which is also occurring in other areas of the country. (Hey – a new “megaword” being born, on-the-spot!)

It strikes me that the entire effort regarding the “Davis-connected” requirement is overly-complicated and is ultimately vulnerable. (And yet, it’s a key “selling point” from the developers, to voters.) Apparently, one of the “mitigations” that arose out of the “outreach”?

But, who knows. After all, it seems that some voters were hoodwinked regarding Affordable housing at Nishi.

According to the development agreement, the Davis-Based Buyers Program (applicable to 90% of the units, other than the affordable apartment units) would restrict initial purchases to purchasers with a “preexisting connection to the City of Davis.” That includes, for example, a “a Davis employee” or “family of a local resident.” Family isn’t defined–but it could include a relative (estranged parent or sibling, or distant cousin?) who has never set foot in Davis. It also includes “an individual that attended Davis schools.” This would give a preference to someone who attended kindergarten in Davis 50 years ago and then moved with their family to the Bay Area or the East Coast. These folks have a preference in 90% of the units over, for example, a lifelong Woodland or Sacramento resident who worked in Davis for decades, but is not a current Davis employee or resident. This is all nonsense.

Another weakness of the proposal (that has been overlooked by everyone) is the fact that more seniors are “aging in place”, these days. (There’s articles on the Internet, regarding this trend.) Perhaps part of the reason is to pass on their existing homes (and low property taxes) to their children. There’s also significant costs involved with buying and selling properties. In addition, much of the existing homes in Davis are already suitable for seniors. (Folks are already living in “downsized” houses.) And, those living in the relatively few McMansions probably have the means and desire to stay in place.

All you’re saying here is that you wonder if there will be enough demand for these houses. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that there is little question these houses would sell very quickly. But more to the point, that’s the developer’s problem and really not a relevant issue in the public’s decision about the project.

Don: “But more to the point, that’s the developer’s problem and really not a relevant issue in the public’s decision about the project.”

It’s being “sold” to voters as a solution to a problem that may not even exist, for the most part. And, which faces significant challenges to actually implement. Which would create a sprawling development which doesn’t even serve the claimed purpose. (See my comment at 11:15 above, regarding purposeful expansion to serve non-residents. In this case, senior non-residents.)

Since David is giving “tips” to opponents, I have some for the developer:

Find some old folks living in Davis, who claim that they’re eager to incur the costs of selling, buying, and moving from their 1,500 square-foot house into an even smaller, more expensive house, in a less-conveniently located neighborhood (essentially requiring trips by auto – while their driving skills are simultaneously declining), and with less diversity (nothing but “old farts”).

And, are willing to limit the sale of their old house at a bargain price to some “well-deserved” young family with lots of children to help with Davis’ declining school enrollment. (Of course, this family would have to come from outside of Davis, for this to be a factor.) Also, the sellers would have no children of their own, who might be interested in inheriting their current house (with its low property taxes).

(I was trying to slip in the “old f-word”, without anyone noticing. I figured that it’s o.k., if I’m pretty close to being one, myself.) Other than that, this is pretty much the argument that developers are making.

This is senior housing for the same reason as “it’s for the children” — it may sell to the brainless mass that votes by feel-good key word (‘green’, ‘sustainable’, ‘education’, ‘children’, ‘seniors’). If this was puppy housing, it would sell even better, because who doesn’t love puppies? What, you’re against puppies???

Our Advertisers

About Us

The Vanguard provides the Davis Community with incisive in-depth coverage of local government on a wide variety of issues. Since 2006, The Vanguard has provided Davis and Yolo County with some of the best groundbreaking news coverage on local government and policy issues affecting our city, our schools, the county, and the Sacramento Region.